Dismissed¶55

Ramamurthy v. v Giridhar

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2026CRL.RP/1198/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court; CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025; H.P. Sandesh, J.; cheque dishonour; funds insufficient; revision under Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC; Sections 438 r/w 442 BNSS; concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court; Ex.P.6 bank passbook withdrawals; Rs.5,00,000/- paid in two installments; accused claimed only Rs.50,000/-; no reply to legal notice; D.W.2 interested witness; preponderance of probabilities; revisional jurisdiction limited to illegality or correctness; C.C.No.411/2017 JMFC Mysuru; Cr.A.No.24/2024; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Ex.P.6 bank passbook establishes that the complainant withdrew Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.02.2014 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.03.2014 and paid a total of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused; the accused's contention that he received only Rs.50,000/- is not substantiated.

Ramamurthy Vs v Giridhar — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused received Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant in two installments as alleged, or only Rs.50,000/-, i.e., whether the cheque dated 30.09.2014 for Rs.5,00,000/- was issued against a genuinely established debt. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Had the accused really availed only Rs.50,000/-, he would have replied to the legal notice saying so; no such reply was given, which supports the complainant's case.

¶49

Key takeaways

D.W.2 is an interested witness and the defence evidence led through D.W.1 and D.W.2 did not substantiate the accused's claim.ratio¶53
Revisional powers can be exercised only if the order under challenge suffers from illegality or incorrectness; no such defect was found, hence no ground was made out to admit the revision petition.ratio¶53
No error was found in the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. (also cited as filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 BNSS) against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court (judgment and sentence dated 24.11.2023 in C.C.No.411/2017, V Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru) and the First Appellate Court (judgment and sentence dated 23.04.2025 in Cr.A.No.24/2024, 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru) convicting the accused in a cheque-dishonour case. The complainant alleged payment of Rs.5,00,000/- in two installments (Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.02.2014 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.03.2014); the cheque dated 30.09.2014 for Rs.5,00,000/- was dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The Court held that Ex.P.6 bank passbook proved the withdrawals preceding each payment, the accused's plea that only Rs.50,000/- was received stood unsubstantiated, his failure to reply to the legal notice undermined the defence, and D.W.2 was an interested witness. Finding no illegality or incorrectness in the concurrent orders and affirming that revisional power arises only where an order suffers on legality or correctness, the Court dismissed the revision petition. (H.P. Sandesh, J., 06.07.2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1198 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAMAMURTHY,

¶11

S/O. A. SANDIYAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.495, 1^ST FLOOR, 8^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. MANIVANNAN G., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

V. GIRIDHAR, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 3460/1, WESLEY ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 021.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V.B., ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 23.04.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 1^ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU, IN CR.A.NO.24/2024 AND THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 24.11.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE V

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, IN C.C.NO.411/2017 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FILED IN C.C.NO.411/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This Court had heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in part in the earlier occasion and today heard both the learned counsel.

¶28

2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant

¶29

before the Trial Court is that both the complainant and the accused are friends and having acquaintance with each other. The complainant for financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was requested by the accused in the month of February 2014, paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.02.2014 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.03.2014 to the accused. The accused assured the complainant to repay the same within September 2014. In the month of September 2014, when the complainant demanded for repayment of the said amount, he issued the subject matter of the cheque dated 30.09.2014 for a sum of

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Rs.5,00,000/-. When the same was presented, it was dishonored with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, a legal notice was issued and the same was served, but the accused did not give any reply and when he did not comply with the demand, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken, he was secured and he did not plead guilty and hence, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to 6. P.W.1 was also cross-examined and the accused also examined two witnesses D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 4. It is the case of the accused that he only received an amount of Rs.50,000/and paid the interest and not obtained any amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on different dates. The Trial Court considered the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the cheque, endorsement, legal notice and no reply was given and even considered the document Ex.P.6, which evidence the fact that before advancing the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, the amount was withdrawn from the bank by the complainant. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2. D.W.2 is none other than the relative of the complainant, but he was having an enmity against the complainant and the same

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

is also admitted that they were not in talking terms and hence, the Trial Court not accepted the case of the accused that he had availed only an amount of Rs.50,000/- and convicted and sentenced the accused.

¶38

3. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.24/2024. The First Appellate Court while re-assessing the evidence available on record, taken note of in paragraph No.16 with regard to the other cheque case and also the payment of Rs.21,500/-, which was deposited to the account of the complainant by the accused towards the interest. In this regard, the accused has produced Exs.D.1 to 3 and the same is discussed in paragraph No.17. In paragraph No.18, the First Appellate Court taken note of that no reply was given by the accused and there is no any rebuttal evidence though examined himself as D.W.1 and examined D.W.2 to prove the factum of preponderance of probabilities. Hence, the First Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court.

¶39

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that only payment of Rs.50,000/was received and not the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025

¶41

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

petitioner not disputes the issuance of the cheque, but only contend that the cheque was misused. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that the Courts below failed to see that there was no actual lending of Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.02.2014 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.03.2014 and committed an error in accepting the document of Ex.P.6. The learned counsel would contend that when D.W.1 has led his evidence for having paid an amount of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,500/- in terms of Exs.D.1 to 3, the Trial Court ought to have accepted the case of the accused, but committed an error.

¶44

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court Ex.P.6(a) and (b), as per which an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was drawn on 08.02.2014 and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was drawn on 29.03.2014 before making the payment in favour of the accused. The learned counsel would contend that the accused has not substantiated his defence that only an amount of Rs.50,000/was taken and not Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶45

6. Having considered the submission of the learned

¶46

counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the respondent, the accused disputes that he has taken only an amount of Rs.50,000/-, but record Ex.P.6 clearly discloses that on 08.02.2014, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant and in the month of February 2014 only payment of Rs.3,00,000/- was made in favour of the accused. It is the specific case of the complainant that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid in two installments. On 29.03.2014, the complainant withdrew an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and payment of Rs.5,00,000/- is established by the complainant producing the document and hence, the very contention of the accused that he only received an amount of Rs.50,000/- is not substantiated. It is also important to note that if really the accused had availed an amount of Rs.50,000/- only, when the legal notice was issued, immediately he would have given the reply stating that he had received only an amount of Rs.50,000/- and not an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and no such reply was given. The complainant produced the document of cheque as well as Ex.P.6 bank passbook evidencing the fact that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- was drawn and paid to the accused. The accused though examined himself as D.W.1 and examined the witness D.W.2, but D.W.2 is an

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:33683 CRL.RP No. 1198 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

interested witness and not substantiated the same. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on record and this Court can exercise the powers of revision only if the order suffers from its legality and correctness and the same is not found. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition

¶54

7. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is

¶55

dismissed.

¶56

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶57

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Ramamurthy v. v Giridhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramamurthy v. v Giridhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma W/O Karisiddappa Vs Smt Nagarathnamma

Dr Vandana S Vs Akash Shankar

Sri Saravanan K Vs Sri C S Ravi

Smt Komala Vs Sri C S Ravi

M/S Quality Poultry Forms and Feeds Vs Sri. K S Vedamurthy